interesting object found on Google Mars

[Skep B]

martian flower and shiny object?

What devilry do you speak of stranger?

[seeder]

martian flower and shiny object?

What devilry do you speak of stranger?

think he means this?

[qxcontinuum]

martian flower and shiny object?

What devilry do you speak of stranger?

Edited August 28, 2013 by qxcontinuum

[Zeta Reticulum]

But that obviously doesn't explain why the images in question are available on NASA's own website and online archives and don't get taken down after they are "leaked".

So by saying that, you agree that NASA WOULD try to hide such evidence if it were of intelligent origin?

[Zeta Reticulum]

and yet there are numerous Photoshop interventions in many of the pictures provided to the public. Never understood why

I disliked in the same time the fact the Mars rover Curiosity was not driven to those "suspicious" items found, as to take closer Macro shots, like the "martian flower" or the shiny metallic object.... almost like the rover bearing it's name was not curious enough to follow the exact purpose was meant for :-)

Very true. Weird objects are passed off as mere rocks, yet delicate studies are made of mundane articles. Doesn't add up

[JesseCuster]

So by saying that, you agree that NASA WOULD try to hide such evidence if it were of intelligent origin?

No, I'm saying that it makes no sense for those who assume that NASA does to that, to say that an insider would 'leak' information by releasing it on NASA's website where it could be hidden at the click of a button.

If I was a NASA employee who found an artificial anomaly on Mars, I'd release it via Wikileaks or to a journalist, not put it up on a website that NASA themselves control. That makes no sense.

[Rlyeh]

Very true. Weird objects are passed off as mere rocks, yet delicate studies are made of mundane articles. Doesn't add up

Just because you see everything but a rock doesn't mean the experts share your wild imagination.

[JesseCuster]

and yet there are numerous Photoshop interventions in many of the pictures provided to the public.

A few examples with explanations for how you know they have been Photoshopped?

[seeder]

So by saying that, you agree that NASA WOULD try to hide such evidence if it were of intelligent origin?

As Ive said before, NASA went to the President, who then WENT ON NATIONAL TV...to announce they 'might' have found alien life from Mars in the meteorite sample

so where the heck is all the secret keeping?

[qxcontinuum]

As Ive said before, NASA went to the President, who then WENT ON NATIONAL TV...to announce they 'might' have found alien life from Mars in the meteorite sample

so where the heck is all the secret keeping?

why do they have to go to the president, and who cares about tiny worms on rock fragments when the big thing might be hidden out there in the dark? ..

Edited August 28, 2013 by qxcontinuum

[Zeta Reticulum]

As Ive said before, NASA went to the President, who then WENT ON NATIONAL TV...to announce they 'might' have found alien life from Mars in the meteorite sample

so where the heck is all the secret keeping?

Microbial life probably wouldn't cause much of a stir. A cd or similar definitely would.

[seeder]

why do they have to go to the president ?

Probably because they couldnt think of anyone better to tell the world they had found alien life.

or thought so anyway. Besides, Im not sure they told him first at all, but used him as potentially world shaking news might be best to come from the president, who knows. But there is this too

Scientists from NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston have detailed their findings in the November issue of the journal Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. But other astrobiologists at NASA Ames Research Center near San Francisco and at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena have also been buzzing over the possible findings, according to Spaceflight Now.

And heres the Presidents actual speech transcript. August 7, 1996

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/clinton.html

[Hazzard]

Im not really sure where the confusion lies here,... We are looking a impact craters on Mars. Nothing strange about it.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Hazzard

[seeder]

Microbial life probably wouldn't cause much of a stir. A cd or similar definitely would.

we know enough about mars to know that no intelligent civilisation ever lived there, thus, no cd will ever be found. And I doubt very very much if any alien life would ever be producing a cd. Even we probably wont in another 20 years or so, they will go the way cassettes did I reckon. So why do you think advanced species will have something we wont in another 20 years?

typos

Edited August 28, 2013 by seeder

[seeder]

who cares about tiny worms on rock fragments

A bit of an idiotic answer really dont you think? Or, dont you think?

[qxcontinuum]

Microbial life probably wouldn't cause much of a stir. A cd or similar definitely would.

A bit of an idiotic answer really dont you think? Or, dont you think?

That was in my mind as well !

Edited August 28, 2013 by qxcontinuum

[seeder]

That was in my mind as well !

Understand that Mars and Earth are approx the same age, about 4.5 billion years old. . Earth had perfect conditions for life, but the last bit of surface water on Mars probably evaporated upwards of 2 1/2 to 3 billion years ago, as there just wasn't enough magnetic field to shield it's atmosphere from the solar wind.

So Mars sort of died 2.5 to 3 billion years ago, meaning, life (apart from microbial), never had the evolutionary time -and chances as it did on Earth.

These simple facts let us know no civilisation could have possible emerged on mars. But the finding of microbes in a meteorite, should be JUST as exciting as it proves life may be common.

You want life in our own solar system, then start getting excited about Europa.where it is very likely to exist. But water life tho, (aquatic) so again, no alien space ships, but a fishy type thing would be great and is...entirely possible on Europa.

As are 'just' microbial worms.

.

.

.

Edited August 28, 2013 by seeder

[qxcontinuum]

I must disagree over the number of years and how slow or fast complex life can become a reality. In fact we humans evolved in just 60.000 years to what we presently are and just 80 years to this super hi tech phase. That's nothing comparing to the age of life on earth of Millions over millions of years. We are the walking proof that intelligent life doesn't require too much evolution. In the same time I am question the carbon dating measurements. Those dinos that we are told lived millions of years ago could be in fact only a few good thousents.

Edited August 28, 2013 by qxcontinuum

[seeder]

I must disagree over the number of years and how slow or fast complex life can become a reality. In fact we humans evolved in just 60.000 years to what we presently are and just 80 years to this super hi tech phase. That's nothing comparing to the age of life on earth of Millions over millions of years. We are the walking proof that intelligent life doesn't require too much evolution. In the same time I am question the carbon dating measurements. Those dinos that we are told lived millions of years ago could be in fact only a few good thousents.

You might like to do a bit of research before posting such stuff, read this:

The origins of humankind on Earth

It is estimated that the first members of the human family (hominins) lived in Africa about 6 or 7 million years ago. They are believed to have been forest-dwelling, perhaps walking upright in the trees or when on the ground.

In 2001, cranial fossils of Sahelanthropus tchadensis dating to this time were uncovered in Chad, central Africa. The fossils show a combination of ape-like and human-like features, although how closely related Sahelanthropus tchadensis is to humans is the subject of debate.

Over millions of years, distinct species and lineages emerged and radiated across Africa. Among them were the earliest members of the genus Homo, to which modern humans belong.

The earliest fossil evidence of these ancient humans dates to between 1.9 and 2.4 million years ago, and comes from East Africa, although a human-like form of the species Australopithecus has recently been described from South Africa. Australopithecus sediba is 1.98 million years old and is the most human-like australopithecine yet discovered, with an increased front brain cavity and small teeth.

The emergence of modern humans

Fossil evidence suggests that modern humans evolved in East Africa around 200,000 years ago, since fossils more than 150,000 years old are known from Ethiopia and Kenya. However, genetic data from recent African populations suggests that other regions may also have been important.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk...when/index.html

and even before us, the Dino's were the leading life on earth, and after they died, rodents and mammals exploited the gap and diversified, very slowly, eventually leading to primates from which we descended.

AND...long long long before the dinos, was smaller life and...even further back, microbes and bacteria's and single celled blobs.

It all takes time. Mars run out of time

.

Edited August 28, 2013 by seeder

[qxcontinuum]

True just did; "Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago" still 200k is nothing comparing to a few dozens of millions of years of existing life on earth.

how about the Water Ape amendment that apparently explains plausibly our super fast evolution, can we really disregard some of the facts leading to this hypothese? Sorry skipping between the subjects, there's a lot more to discuss about which requires vocal communication rather than writing.

A similar process could have happened on Mars in a wet environment.

In the same time there is something that was never verified. This is the age of the river bad rocks. Curiosity was not carrying a carbon dating lab. so the age of water disappearance is not known for sure. What if there's only a few thousand of years since it happened? How is the science exactly able to determinate when mars ceased to be a potential alive planet?

sorry if i don't know much about this subject...

Edited August 28, 2013 by qxcontinuum

[seeder]

how about the Water Ape amendment?

eh?

[qxcontinuum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis

[seeder]

http://en.wikipedia...._ape_hypothesis

I often say reading is good. That article does not suggest the hypothesis is TRUE, I mean - its just a hypothesis after all, and the same article also has some good debunks in it

Ellen White describes Morgan's work as failing to be empirical, not addressing evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, relying on comparative anatomy rather than selection pressure, not predicting any new evidence and failing to address its own shortcomings. White stated that while the hypothesis had the scientific characteristics of explanatory power and public debate, the only reason it has received any actual scholarly attention is due to its public appeal, ultimately concluding the AAH was unscientific.[41] Others have similarly noted the AAH "is more an exercise in comparative anatomy than a theory supported by data."[42]

and

The AAH has received little serious attention or acceptance from mainstream paleoanthropologists, has been met with significant skepticism[49][50] and is not considered a strong scientific hypothesis.[15][42] The AAH does not appear to have passed the peer review process, and despite Morgan being praised by various scholars, none of her work has appeared in any academic journals of anthropology or related disciplines.[41]

The AAH is thought by some anthropologists to be accepted readily by popular audiences, students and non-specialist scholars because of its simplicity.[3] In 1987 a symposium was held in Valkenburg, the Netherlands, titled "Aquatic Ape: Fact or fiction?", which published its proceedings in 1991.[12] A review of Morgan's book The Scars of Evolution stated that it did not address the central questions of anthropology – how the human and chimpanzee gene lines diverged – which was why it was ignored by the scholarly community. The review also stated that Morgan ignored the fossil record and skirted the absence of evidence that australopithecine underwent any adaptations to water, making the hypothesis impossible to validate from fossils.[39]

and lots more to be found by reading the entire page

[seeder]

We could have evolved in space too

quote:

"Now, this is all very interesting, but it's easy to come up with any old just-so story to "explain" any set of features you choose. Last week the aquatic ape idea was gently lampooned by the hypothesis that humans evolved in space (see Kate Wong's summary).

Evidence included the benefits of zero gravity (which is why we all suffer from back-ache), why we mate face-to-face (because otherwise our jet packs would get in the way) and so on. The space ape idea is deliberately ridiculous – but no more so than the aquatic ape scheme, the reason being that there is absolutely no evidence for either. Apart from the methodological flaws inherent in such cocktail-party theorising, the aquatic ape idea is plagued by several other problems.

http://www.theguardi...ism-evolution

.

Edited August 28, 2013 by seeder

[qxcontinuum]

We should not deny however a few characteristics we have and that are specific only to water mammals. Nothing else explains how we evolved from 4 legged walking to only 2 and modifications of the pelvis which normally defies evolution and it creates a lot of health troubles with aging.

In the same time we are the only species on earth (land) capable of holding breath for so long, we still have a reminiscence of a membrane between fingers. Discovery have also made a documentary on the Aquatic Ape theory and evolution in parelel adding the mermaid subject in discussion as a very potential reality.

here are some more resemblances between humans and water mammals

fat pulls away with the skin (blubber)

muscle force and bones adaptation to walk straight but biped walk is less agile, activity in which the body titus on the edge of catastrophe. reshaping the pelvis and the skull to adjust to walking straight.

Every naked animal is semi or fully aquatic

All animals accumulating fat are semi or fully aquatic (as insulation)

Other mammals cannot hold their breath

Human vagina is deep and Hymen is existing only to aquatic mammals as to protect water entrance.

Nostrils are facing down instead of Up as to protect from water to come in.

Babies love water, mothers having no issues giving birth under water.

Edited August 28, 2013 by qxcontinuum